Starving children

Atreyu · Oct 12, 2009

I have done a great deal of research about the wastefulness of the human race.

Did you know that Louis Vuitton created a purse that was literally made from real grabage that can be found around the streets of NewYork city? Very inovative and unique some might say. This purse is adorned with a cigerette pack, a shrimp tail, a condom wrapper and other various trash.
It was said that a few celebrities were in a bidding war for this purse up into 100s of thousands of dollars.

All the while there are babies barely old enough to walk whos parents have left them abandoned, foreging in trash cans looking for food.

I guess bidding on who can feed the hungriest baby could never be as stylish as a Louis Vuitton trashbag.

3.14 · Oct 12, 2009

they don't have any good reason to feed those babies
but they could always use another purse

Atreyu · Oct 12, 2009

3.14 said:
they don't have any good reason to feed those babies
but they could always use another purse

Ya, purses are cool and starving children are not cool.

3.14 · Oct 12, 2009

so how much did you spend on helping them?

Atreyu · Oct 12, 2009

3.14 said:
so how much did you spend on helping them?

Not as much as I would like, however it is a passion of mine, and I will not give up until all the starving babies are warm, safe and fed. Unless I die first.

Shadow Wolf · Oct 12, 2009

According to Alice Cooper's Freaky Facts, American's waste more food in one day than is donated to an African hunger charity in one year.

Neo-Logic · Oct 13, 2009

There are a lot of rich people that have bid much more for things that you may consider far lower on the priority of life. However, it wouldn't be fair to use your example or other examples to generalize all wealthy people as people who spend 'stupidly' when much more utilitarian things can be accomplished.

There are a lot of wealthy people doing good things. Bill and Melinda foundation, the Clinton Global Initiative, just to name a few. A lot of wealthy people are philanthropists that have saved a lot of lives. And those who wants to bid hundreds of thousands of dollars on stupid things? well, make the money they've made and you can choose to save hundreds of thousands of lives!

Just the way the game is played.

3.14 · Oct 13, 2009

if a rich person spends 1 miljoen on helping those children does that mean he is far more charitable then you can ever be?

or do you think money is not the only factor?

Atreyu · Oct 13, 2009

3.14 said:
if a rich person spends 1 miljoen on helping those children does that mean he is far more charitable then you can ever be?

or do you think money is not the only factor?

No certainly money is not the only the factor, however hypocrites around the globe preach the gospel all the while they fly around in private jets and cruise the streets in luxury cars. Even the pope is adorned in fabulous robes. While these helpless little babies are crying for food in the Africa. Sell the robes and feed the babies. What I am saying is that the luxuries have gone to far. How can a person especially those religious teachers wear Armani suits and robes lined in gold while babies go hungry. It makes me sick. They are the Pharisees of the Bible.

3.14 · Oct 13, 2009

you do know one of the reasons there starving is we artificialy keeping the poor alive thereby allowing them to reproduce

though i doubt any religious leader would openly say " i'm not giving money so the majority of the poor die out, so the remaining poor can life a more decent life"

not helping sometime's does more good in the long run then "babying" them

Madhuri · Oct 13, 2009

I think the reasons lie somewhere in that by donating some food one day is not solving the problem. What we should be doing is looking for solutions to the problem of why people are not getting access to food or shelter etc. People have been donating for many years but these people are still dying and that's because we can't continuously be forking out from our salaries to keep them barely alive. And there are so MANY tragic things occurring in the wolrd; which one do we pursue? I think it's easier for most people to just forget about it. It's also easy to ignore a problem if you have no experience or realisation of it.

But back to the point, it isn't donating randomly that we sould be devoted to. It's solving the problem all together so that we don't need to donate. However, I think that there will always be some people baring the brunt and experiencing the worst conditions. Especially in a globalised reality, where capitalism inevitably fosters human exploitation. Money becomes the goal, and people/animals are rendered quite unimportant.

It's a sad world.

Atreyu · Oct 13, 2009

Madhuri said:
I think the reasons lie somewhere in that by donating some food one day is not solving the problem. What we should be doing is looking for solutions to the problem of why people are not getting access to food or shelter etc. People have been donating for many years but these people are still dying and that's because we can't continuously be forking out from our salaries to keep them barely alive. And there are so MANY tragic things occurring in the wolrd; which one do we pursue? I think it's easier for most people to just forget about it. It's also easy to ignore a problem if you have no experience or realisation of it.

But back to the point, it isn't donating randomly that we sould be devoted to. It's solving the problem all together so that we don't need to donate. However, I think that there will always be some people baring the brunt and experiencing the worst conditions. Especially in a globalised reality, where capitalism inevitably fosters human exploitation. Money becomes the goal, and people/animals are rendered quite unimportant.

It's a sad world.

Well, stopping a Holy war is highly unlikely , but feeding starving children seems quite simple when there is more than enough food to go around, Just to many glutenous little pigs unwilling to share.

gnomon · Oct 13, 2009

Well, Norman Borlaug recently passed away. He and other scientists led the way in helping to feed millions around the world through developing new agronomy techniques.

Of course some people criticized him for aiding overpopulation! Strange.

There have been far better criticisms but some are just off the mark. Criticizing the construction of roads in those areas where people were starving to help develop land to feed those people who are starving. That's one of those criticisms classed as elitist.

Madhuri · Oct 13, 2009

Atreyu said:
Well, stopping a Holy war is highly unlikely , but feeding starving children seems quite simple when there is more than enough food to go around, Just to many glutenous little pigs unwilling to share.

It would probably cost a bit of money to send enough food and supplies to last lifetimes in various nations/communities. Not enough people would be willing to spend their own money or time to devote their lives to keeping people alive. Particularly when it should be the governments (of the particular nations) responsibility. I mean, if people from other countries are willing to feed voluntarily then the governments really can just sit back and take advantage (im not making excuses, btw). But anyway, providing continuously through charitable contributions does not solve many problems. The point is, the amout of food in the world has nothing to do with why people go hungry. Its all to do with politics and economy. That's where you need to concentrate your efforts. But if you are going to make hte rest of the world better, expect your own country to fall to the pits. The nature of capitalism and globalisation calls for it.

Donating isn't enough. Real change needs to happen in policies and systems of society to bring about a significant difference.

gnomon · Oct 13, 2009

Feeding starving people can be damned near impossible.

Remember The Battle of Mogadishu. Sounds ominous. When the U.S. and U.N. tried to feed the starving people of Somalia all hell broke loose. Of course the World Bank is probably to blame for much of what led to the famine and some bungling on the part of the UN during the operations but it was primarily Aidid and the other warlords who brought an end to the operations.

All U.S. forces withdrew from the area after that battle. No more troops to protect aid workers in the area. As a direct result many, many people continued to starve and die.

Local politics can turn what looks like a simple aid effort into an impossible task.

3.14 · Oct 13, 2009

well the problem is is that it can't be solved.
1 We don't have the required energy for it
2 We don't have the infrastructure for it
3 We don't have the room for it
4 We don't have a use for them

now lets say you have unlimited funds

first you need space to house those that won't die
then you need a properly functioning infastructure
to build that infastructure you need power fuel etc
then you need to force all the children to go to school and finish atleast highschool
(by the time they are about to graduate you should have made enough jobs to keep unemployment under 5% with a westerns country's minimum wage)

o and don't forget that by 2043 we will globaly need a 70% increase in foodsuppy not to mention the increases in fuel and other utility's

ps
the cost to do something like this will far exceed the gdp of multiple country's put together

Atreyu · Oct 13, 2009

3.14 said:
4 We don't have a use for them

ps
the cost to do something like this will far exceed the gdp of multiple country's put together

Actually no that is not true, if my research is correct there is actually more than enough food, and money to go around and if we started by with food well that would be great. As for no use for them. That is hardly the point. No baby deserves to suffer and the comment is ignorant,

3.14 · Oct 13, 2009

no offence but you do realize unemployed people generate no money right?
so if they don't have money how will they afford education/food for there children,
without proper education how will there children get a good job

ps
your probably revering to what farms destroy in food, but there is a reason they destroy food

a, more food means less profit from food, means more food needs to be grown to maintain profit margin
meaning more soil needs to be used and more extensivly (wich is bad for the soil in the long run)

b, delivering products to 3 world country's is very expensive especialy since there is little proper infrastructure to ease delivery costs

pps

don't claim other people are ignorant if you yourself don't fully grasp the consequence of your actions
though your actions are noble there not very usefull

Atreyu · Oct 13, 2009

3.14 said:
no offence but you do realize unemployed people generate no money right?
so if they don't have money how will they afford education/food for there children,
without proper education how will there children get a good job

ps
your probably revering to what farms destroy in food, but there is a reason they destroy food

a, more food means less profit from food, means more food needs to be grown to maintain profit margin
meaning more soil needs to be used and more extensivly (wich is bad for the soil in the long run)

b, delivering products to 3 world country's is very expensive especialy since there is little proper infrastructure to ease delivery costs

pps

don't claim other people are ignorant if you yourself don't fully grasp the consequence of your actions
though your actions are noble there not very usefull

Not useful for profiting or not useful for saving babies. Nobody ever said I was speaking of trying to profit from feeding starving children. The truth is no more food needs to be grown. The people just in the U.S. alone waste enough food each year to feed every starving child on the earth. I am speaking of sharing what we don't need to survive in order for others to eat.

Atreyu · Oct 14, 2009

Neo-Logic said:
There are a lot of rich people that have bid much more for things that you may consider far lower on the priority of life. However, it wouldn't be fair to use your example or other examples to generalize all wealthy people as people who spend 'stupidly' when much more utilitarian things can be accomplished.

There are a lot of wealthy people doing good things. Bill and Melinda foundation, the Clinton Global Initiative, just to name a few. A lot of wealthy people are philanthropists that have saved a lot of lives. And those who wants to bid hundreds of thousands of dollars on stupid things? well, make the money they've made and you can choose to save hundreds of thousands of lives!

Just the way the game is played.

This just goes to prove my thread, What Christains should fear, as many of those who spend foolishly call themselves believers of Christ, yet they never actually follow his teachings. If every Christain would actually do what Jesus asked of them there would be no starving children. I spoke of the foolish spending of the rich, however they are not the only guilty ones. Like I said in my other thread, most of those who believe they are going to heaven are actually never according to the very words of Jesus.If there is a God, simply believing will not get you to heaven.

Starving children

The Devil herself

Well-Known Member

The Devil herself

Well-Known Member

The Devil herself

Certified People sTabber

Reality Checker

Well-Known Member

The Devil herself

Well-Known Member

RF Goddess

The Devil herself

Well-Known Member

RF Goddess

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

The Devil herself

Well-Known Member

The Devil herself

The Devil herself